81
Duke Street, Grosvenor Square, London W1M
5DJ telephone
0171 499 9409; fax 409 7048
London, Sunday
August 11, 1996 Your reference: 5/AJ/JLL/m Without
Prejudice Dear Mr Julius, The Board
of Deputies of British Jews First I must apologise for not having
responded earlier substantively to your letter
of March 5 [1996] with the enclosed
Questionnaire.[Neither
document is posted on this
Website] I was stricken down with pneumonia for
several weeks, and was then swept up with the
affairs surrounding the successful U.K.
publication of my latest book,
and the U.S. non-publication
of the same, which I shall adduce in due
course as further evidence of the pecuniary
damage that I have suffered because of the
campaign mounted in Canada,
Austria, Germany,
South Africa and elsewhere by your clients or
their agents. The Answers to the Questionnaire which you
enclosed are as follows:-  6.2
Irving claims that his father was also a
polar explorer
1. Do you claim this? ANSWER: No. I claim that he was "an author,
Arctic explorer, and naval officer who served in
the Battle of Jutland in 1916…" etc. See
enclosed page from my biographical
brochure TORPEDO
RUNNING. 2. Was your father a polar explorer? ANSWER: As a Royal Navy officer in the 1920s
my father served on expeditions to Antarctica
aboard HMS Discovery and the William
Scoresby. COMMENT: The defamatory sting is in the word
claims, since in
the context of the Report complained of it
implies that I am boasting about something
knowing it to be untrue. 8. Parents "divorced" 1. Did your parents divorce? If not,
did they separate? ANSWER: They were not divorced; they were
separated, he living in North Wales, she with us
in Essex. 9. [No questions were asked.] 10. "Untrue … 800 Washington Street,
Key West, Florida." 1. What is the nature of your
relationship with this address? ANSWER: This is a hotel, at which I
occasionally stayed from January 1987 when
visiting Key West. | 2.2.5 "Untrue … civil war." 1. Please tell us his full
name. We will then seek independent
verification. ANSWER: My first wife's father was Enrique
Stuyck Candela, who died aged 54 in February
1962, a few days after the death of his wife. He
was a businessman with a Chemistry degree. He
was never in the Spanish armed forces on either
side. Like him, most of his family (brothers)
were on the Republican side in the Spanish civil
war; his brothers had to flee to South America
after Generalisimo Francisco Franco came to
power. Her mother's brother Enrique Roma Jover
was shot by the communists in error (his father,
the real target of the communist assassins, was
already dead). COMMENT: The defamatory sting is in the
innuendo that I deliberately married into a top
Spanish falangist, fascist or militarist
family. 3.1/3.2.1. "let me state quite
categorically that neither then nor since have I
'received funding or other material assistance
from Nazis' even taking the broadest definition
of those words." 1. Please explain which of the
following groups and individuals you include
in your 'broadest definition' of 'Nazis' to
enable us to understand what you mean by
this. ANSWER: For the purposes of this answer I
include the groups numbered by you 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
in this definition of the word "Nazis"; I do not
exclude the possibility that one or other member
of those groups may have, with or without my
knowledge, purchased individual books or similar
material either directly or indirectly from me
in the normal course of my business as an
historian, author, and publisher. As for the
other numbers, while I am unable to adjudge
whether they count as "Nazis" or not, the
following data on my financial relations (or
non-relations) with them should adequately serve
the purposes of your Questionnaire: 6. British National Party 1980 to
present. I am not familiar with their
programme or policies, so cannot judge if they
are "Nazi" or not. I find that we (Focal
Point Publications) have in the past
supplied books to them, and on precisely the
same terms as to other booksellers, i.e. not on
more favourable terms. There is otherwise no
other point of contact whatever between the BNP
as such and myself or my publishing
operation. 7. Freedom Books/Videos. I have not
heard of them, and they are not listed on my
bookseller database. There is no other point of
contact whatever between Freedom Books / Videos
and myself or my publishing operation. 8. John Tyndall. I hold this gentleman
at arm's length. When
CHURCHILL'S WAR vol. i
was presented at a press conference aboard HMS
Belfast in November 1987, Mr Tyndall was
observed to be present: he had not been invited,
and I conducted an internal inquiry as to how he
came to be there. (It turned out that one of the
guests had invited him, without my
authorisation). | 9. Anthony Hancock. He has been one of
the several printers used by us on a normal
commercial basis over the last years. His
right-wing views are well known. This fact no
more dissuades me from using his firm than the
fact that B & H Newman
Printers [of
London] were Jewish enjoined me from
using their firm for many years (I stopped using
the latter firm in 1994 after I learned that
they had volunteered private materials on me and
my book publications without consulting me and
without my authorisation to a third party,
namely a lawyer for a German plaintiff in a
lawsuit). 10. Gerhard Frey. Hired me for a
series of history lecture tours in Germany from
about 1982 to about 1988. His organisation
awarded to me two certificates during this
period, which were each linked with a cash
award; one was called the Freedom Prize (I
think), and the other the Rudel prize, named
after a German WW2 fighter ace. As his
organisation is legal, properly constituted
under the Federal German law, and has never been
banned, I do not consider the word "Nazi" would
be appropriate for it. 11. François Genoud. His views
have become widely known since his recent death.
When we met we never talked about his views,
since our negotiations were purely those of an
author and historian dealing with a man sitting
on and controlling exclusive access to important
caches of wartime documents. Since there was
never any commercial or pecuniary relationship
between us, on even the slightest scale, and no
money between us ever changed hands, whether or
not he was a "Nazi" is irrelevant. 12. Ewald Althans. I first met this
odd young man in October 1989; at that time he
had views which to me were excitable rather than
eccentric or extreme. He was not at that time a
"Nazi" by any standard. He subsequently became
relatively extreme (i.e. not advocating
violence), and by 1991 it was plain to me that
he had become a hired agent provocateur of the
Federal German government. He subsequently,
during his trial in Berlin, admitted as much. He
thus became not so much a "Nazi" as a fake
"Nazi". I made plain to him in 1991 that I
wished nothing further to do with him, and I was
very angry when--it now turns out, on German
government pay--he turned up like a Bad Penny
everywhere I was, whether in Los Angeles or
Ontario. 13. Jean Marie le Pen. There is no
point of contact whatever between this gentleman
(or his organisation) and myself or my
publishing operation. We have never met,
corresponded, or spoken. 14. Ernst Zündel. I first met
this gentleman in Ontario in November 1987, and
in April 1988 I was accepted by the District
Court in Toronto as an expert defence witness to
give
evidence as an historian at his trial on the
charge of spreading false information. Along
with the other witnesses called by the
prosecution and defence, I was subsequently paid
a witness-fee and expenses for the six days I
was in Toronto. After many appeals and
counter-appeals, he ultimately was cleared of
the offence. I do not consider him to be a
"Nazi," though he has been driven into adopting
extreme positions by the organised Jewish
harassment and the orchestrated violence to
which he has been subjected. | 15. Kirk Lyons. See my attached
affidavit
[*], which provides the relevant
data. I do not consider him to be a "Nazi" for
the purposes of this Questionnaire. 16. Nick Griffin. There is no point of
contact whatever between this gentleman (or his
organisation) and myself or my publishing
operation. To the best of my belief we have
never met or spoken. 17. Eric D Butler. I do not consider
him to be a "Nazi" for the purposes of this
Questionnaire. Although it is possible that he,
along with hundreds of other Australians, has
contributed to the David Irving Fighting Fund
(Australia) I have no proof of this as it is
managed Down Under. 18. Willis Carto. I do not consider
him to be a "Nazi" for the purposes of this
Questionnaire. Apart from receiving orthodox and
modest fees for lecturing on two or three
occasions on historical topics on which I had
amassed expertise to the Institute for
Historical Review (IHR) at the time when he was
running it, I have received no funds from him.
In 1993 he offered me a fee to write an article
on his legal dispute with the IHR; having spent
some days scrutinising the papers on the affair
which he sent me, I declined the offer.  19.
Albert Speer. I consider him to be a
"Nazi" for the purposes of this
Questionnaire.
20. National Front (1979). I am not
familiar with their programme or policies, so
cannot judge if they are "Nazi" or not. There
was and is no point of contact whatever between
the NF as such and myself or my publishing
operation. 21. Martin Webster. There was and is
no point of contact whatever between this man as
such and myself or my publishing operation. He
on one brief occasion carried out typesetting
work for us, under a pseudonym. When I learned
of his real identity--which had not been known
to me--I instructed my staff to make no further
use of his firm. 22. Martin Wingfield. There was and is
no point of contact whatever between this man as
such and myself or my publishing operation. 3.2.3. "… opulent lifestyle" 1. Do you life in Mayfair? ANSWER: I have lived since [November
1968] in north Mayfair; in 1985 I was given
the opportunity to purchase a lease on my
property at about half of its real value. 2. Do you or did you ever drive a
Rolls-Royce? ANSWER: In about 1977 I purchased for
£9,000 a second hand Rolls Royce; I sold it
twelve years later for £5,000. I bought it
because of its low maintenance costs compared
with the previous British Leyland cars I had
driven. 3. Do you or did you ever travel
extensively abroad?
[* Not posted here.
This was provided at the request of the lawyers
investigating the Oklahoma City
bombing] | ANSWER: Working, yes. 4. Are your suits tailored? ANSWER: I have two suits only, both tailored
in February 1986. 5. Please provide accounts, as
offered, for the periods 1960-69, 1970-79,
1980-89, and 1990-present. ANSWER: Nice try. As it is my contention that
your clients and their agents have gone to great
lengths to try to ascertain and to deprive me
and my family of our sources of livelihood I
shall not at this at this stage provide such
accounts, nor were they "offered" as you
maintain. For the purposes of this Questionnaire
I am prepared to instruct my accountant, who has
been my accountant at all material times, to
answer confidentially a Question framed by
yourselves, along these lines: "It has been suggested that your
client David Irving enjoys an opulent
lifestyle, and has done for many years. It
does not seem that he could maintain such a
standard of living without source of income
other than his books. From your knowledge of
his finances can you confirm whether(a) Mr Irving's lifestyle over
the years that you have known him could
reasonably be described as opulent? And
whether(b) he has been funded by Nazis living
abroad or in Britain? "Or has he, in the alternative, sustained
himself and his family entirely by royalties
from his books, radio and television
appearances, lecture income, and bank and
other loans including loans from his
family?"  4.1.
1. Have you ever published the
Leuchter
Report? Have you commented on it? Have
you analysed its contents? What is your
current view of it? ANSWER: The Leuchter Report was not mentioned
in my complaint of November 14. The answers are
however as follows: Yes, trading as Focal Point
Publications, in June 1989 I published the U.K.
edition of what is commonly called the Leuchter
Report, embellishing it with an Introduction
in which I drew attention to its gravamen and to
its shortcomings. My current view is that
although flawed in peripheral details, it
provided a worthwhile stimulus to the debate on
the gas chambers issue; but that it has been
supplanted and complemented by other revisionist
research, notably by Jean-Claude Pressac's
investigations, and by Germar Rudolf, at the
time employed as an expert chemist by the Max
Planck Foundation. 2. Do you acknowledge that Hitler
was responsible for the mass shootings and
mass gassings of approximately 6 million Jews
in Nazi-occupied Europe during World War Two? ANSWER: These allegations were not mentioned
in my complaint of November 14. The answers are
however as follows: As head of state, Hitler was
responsible for any and all crimes within the
areas over which he exercised authority at the
time in which they were committed. | 1. "I was not dismissed as Editor of the
Phoenix" [for the reason stated] 1. You describe Albert Vögler
as a 'former Nazi". Please forward us a copy
of your article on him. ANSWER: It is not my duty to assist your
clients in building their muck-raking archive. I
did however spend an hour searching for a copy
of The Phoenix (1956) containing the article by
me which you requested--it was entitled
"Hitler's Paymaster was a Guildsman," and had a
photograph showing Hitler and ex City &
Guilds student Fritz Thyssen [not Albert
Vogler: that was a lapsus linguae by me]
touring the Vereinigte Stahlwerke with Albert
Vogler, which I remember obtaining from Hodder
& Stoughton who had published Thyssen's book
"I paid Hitler". That copy of The Phoenix is
unaccountably missing from my file, but if it
seems important I will try to obtain one. 2. Do you deny that you attempted to
conceal the existence of your special
supplement to Carnival Times, and that this
was the reason for your dismissal by the
relevant authorities? ANSWER: There was no special supplement to
Carnival Times; the pages were numbered
consecutively right through. As editor, I had
discretion on which articles to include and
which to exclude. The university student
authorities knew the identity of the printing
firm, the Haycock Press, and no attempt was made
at concealment. I was not dismissed; when the
London Student Union announced that they
disapproved of my choice of articles, I of
course resigned. 2. "The special supplement contained
racist cartoons." 1. Did the supplement contain any cartoons?
If so please provide a copy. ANSWER: There was no supplement. The Carnival
Times contained a dozen or so comic strips and
cartoons of which one addressed the colour
issue, being a stinging comment on the hypocrisy
of Lefty students who proclaimed their
solidarity with anti-apartheid campaigners but
were not willing to march with Coloured students
in their midst. Copies are attached
herewith. 3. "Alleged quotations" in the Daily Mail,
May 1, 1959. 1. Which of the quotations in the
article
do you dispute? ANSWER: I have dealt with this often over the
intervening thirty-seven years, since your
clients have never tired of ensuring that the
quotations--shorn of their date!--are kept in
circulation. I can answer your question most
readily by including a copy of the schedule
of errors which I drew up for Defence
Counsel for the famous PQ.17 libel action
twenty-six years ago. 2. The "mild fascist" quote has been
used by numerous commentators since 1959.
Have you objected to it before. If so when? ANSWER: Yes, on
every occasion that has been brought to my
attention, until I have grown sick of it. See
above answer. 4. "It is libellous to state that I was
active in the BUF." | 1. Have of have you had any other
involvement or association with the Union
Movement. ANSWER: No. 2. Do you have any involvement with
the Friends of Oswald Mosley or its
publication Comrade? ANSWER: No. 1970-1980 2. "Broome deliberately abandoned the
convoy to Nazi U boats." 1. What was the judgement of both the Court
and the Court of Appeal?  ANSWER:
The quoted allegation is stated nowhere in the
book The
Destruction of Convoy PQ.17, and when
Broome's lawyers authorised changes to enable
the book to be published in a sanitised version
not one of the changes impinged upon this
allegation. The jury in the first instance found
against the Defendants and awarded punitive
damages; since in Counsel's Opinion their
judgement did not accord with the evidence in
Admiralty records which we offered as evidence,
or with what was actually written in the book,
the insurers of the First Defendant (Cassell
& Co) authorised an appeal, which ultimately
went to the House of Lords. Here it was adjudged
that we had established one-third of our case,
namely on the issue of Broome's disobedience to
orders. In a subsequent Appeal to the Lords, he
was ordered to pay one-third of the costs, and
ruined, much to my regret.
9. Otto Frank 1. Why did Ullstein remove the
reference? ANSWER: You would have to ask Ullstein. At no
stage did they consult me, nor did they inform
me, nor did they ask me to indemnify them. 13. "Very few of my talks in Germany were
organised by the GFP" 1. How many of your talks in Germany
between 1970 and 1980 were organised by the
GFP and can you prove this with
documentation? ANSWER: I estimate two or three such
functions; I have no documentation other than
the printed texts that were subsequently issued
of the said talks. 2. How many of your talks in Germany
between 1970 and 1980 were delivered at
meetings organised by the GFP? ANSWER: This appears to be the same question
as No. 1? 3. Do you accept that GFP functions
during this time (c. 1978) were regularly
featured in the German neo-Nazi press,
including Deutsche National-Zeitung, Deutsche
Wochen-Zeitung, and Eckaltbote. Where else
were the meetings advertised? ANSWER: (a) I do not accept the adjective
"neo-Nazi" for the first two newspapers, which
so far as I am aware are not banned in Germany
and never have been; (b) I have no information
on whether GFP functions were regularly | featured in these publications, as I do
not subscribe to them; (c) I have never heard of
Eckaltbote, nor have I seen a copy. I do not
know where else the meetings were advertised,
but I assume that they were advertised by direct
mail to their extensive membership lists. Public
advertisement of meetings was avoided, as it
usually resulted in the attendance of violent
opponents, organised and paid for by groups
similar to your clients.27. 1. In which years has your name
appeared on the public list of "Enemies of
the State" of Germany. ANSWER: You tell me! In my para. 27 I stated
that this was the first that I had heard of this
allegation which features in your clients'
Report
complained of. 2. What were the reasons for your
inclusion on the list? ANSWER: See above answer. I have considered
it important to put in writing to the German
office for the protection of the constitution
(Verfassungsschutz) my protests about lies about
me which they have included in their annual
reports, but they have failed to respond or even
answer. 3. When was Focal Point established?
When did it cease publication? ANSWER: (a) As an irregular newsletter, Focal
Point began informally appearing in about 1980,
and ceased publication in 1982. (b) Focal Point
is now the imprint of my publishing firm. 28. Clarendon Club 1. Which of the persons listed did
you, or did you not, know? ANSWER: Of those listed by your clients as
present at the dinner, I have never knowingly
met the following: Beardson, Chaldecott, Webber,
Rushton, Griffin, Souter Clarence; I have met
John Ormowe, a schoolteacher, but I have no
knowledge of his association with any "Column
88"--as is the innuendo of the words in brackets
after his name. According to my computer records
however the first Focal Point was sent to
Chaldecott and Rushton, in 1980/1; and on April
20, 1994 Rushton sent an unsolicited donation to
the David Irving Legal Fighting Fund. 2. Which of the persons' "alleged
associations" (affiliations) are correct, and
which are incorrect? ANSWER: Tell your clients to do their own
research! If I never knowingly met them, and do
not know them, how could I answer except with
speculation. 3. What exactly do you "not believe
to be true?" ANSWER: That I was aware of their alleged
affiliations. 4. Did you buy the National Front
mailing list in 1979? If so, why? ANSWER: I did not personally buy the list,
and this is the first time I have heard of this
allegation. I would have to locate and ask my
then secretary about | his activities. At about that time (I would
have said 1980/1/2) we bought several mailing
lists, including that of the Young Conservatives
or their university association, with the
intention of trying mailshots of Focal Point to
them. 5. Did Focal Point advertise for
secretaries of Far Right groups to sell their
mailing lists to Focal Point? ANSWER: See above. My secretary placed
advertisements in, I believe, Spectator, for
general secretaries of right-wing and
conservative (but not "Far right") groups to
sell their mailing lists to us. 6. (a) Who joined the Clarendon
Club? (b) You are the proprietor and General
Secretary, who else holds, or has held,
official positions in the Clarendon Club? ANSWERS: (a) In general, respectable
collar-and-tie people who ate with a knife and
fork. We had no screening process, so it is
impossible to be more specific. At its most
recent head-count it comprised 962 names. (b)
You are not entitled to this information, in my
view. 7. Where did you promote or
advertise the Clarendon Club? ANSWER: Nowhere; except by direct mailing
handbills to its mailing list. 18. Rudel 1. Did you attend a memorial meeting
or service for Hans Ulrak [Ulrich]
Rudel? ANSWER: Not that I recall. If your clients
provide a date, I will search my diaries. Your
clients after all make the allegation. 2. If so, when and where was it? ANSWER: Your clients make the allegation.
They must know. 3. Did you speak at it? ANSWER: Depends on if there was such a
function. I recall speaking once briefly about
Rudel's exploits as a tank-killer on the eastern
front, but to my recollection he was still alive
at that time. 4. Who was it organised by? ANSWER: Depends on if there was such a
function. 5. Approximately how many people
attended? ANSWER: Depends on if there was such a
function. 6. Was Rudel a member of the group
who organised the meeting? ANSWER: Depends on if there was such a
function. Even if so, I have no means of knowing
if he was or was not a member of the organising
group. It's all rather vague--meaning your
questioning. 1982 -
1984 10. "I have never heard of WISE" 1. WISE was one of a number of
prominent Far Right groups in Britain at this
time. Are you sure you have never heard of
it? If you have heard of it, what was your
relationship with it, and its leading
activists. | ANSWER: I have never heard of WISE. 1984 -
1985 4. Visit to North London Polytechnic &
Patrick Harrington 1. Are you aware that this was
reported in Time Out 10-16.5.84. Did you
dispute this report when it first appeared? ANSWER: I do not subscribe to Time Out. I
have no recollection of such a meeting. I have
genuinely searched all my pocket notebooks for
1984 and find no trace of the meeting. I cannot
rule out that my memory is at fault. I would
first have to check my main diaries for 1984,
which are at present inaccessible. From what I
hear lately, Mr Harrington speaks most
disparagingly of me. 1988 -
1989 1. Churchill's War 1. Where in the report does it state
that "Michael Joseph Limited rejected
Churchill's War owing to the severity of its
attacks on Churchill"? ANSWER: Paragraph 1, lines 4 - 6. See
attached photocopy. 2. What in this paragraph is untrue
and can you supply documentation to prove
this? ANSWER: I stated in my letter of Complaint,
November 14, what was untrue. Yes, I can supply
documentation to prove it and shall do so in due
course under the RSC rules on Discovery. The
same editor [Alan
Brook] (formerly at Michael Joseph)
only recently phoned me to state that he is
eagerly awaiting volume ii, since he would like
to publish my entire Churchill opus as a boxed
set. 6. Berlin Document Centre 1. Please provide the relevant
correspondence. See attached photocopies.
[Not posted on
this Website] 14. War Crimes Leaflet 1. What is your relationship with
Focal Point Publications? ANSWER: It is the publishing imprint under
which I do business and publish and distribute
books by myself and other authors. 2. Do you know Anthony Hancock? ANSWER: Yes. I have commercial relations with
his Print Factory. See above. | 1990 -
1991 6. March in Munich 1. Verfassungsschutzbericht 1991
states that the Munich County Court fined
you over DM7,000 because of an unregistered
gathering in Munich on 21.4.90. Do you have
documentation to the contrary? ANSWER: See my comments on the
Verfassungsschutz above. They do not respond to
letters
in which I draw their attention to errors. Their
report appears to be largely compiled from press
clippings. I have a very bulky file arising from
that episode, about ten inches thick; so yes, I
do have documentation to the contrary. In
summary: After I spoke at a public meeting in
Munich on April 21, 1990 I was arrested on the
way back to my hotel and accused of
participating (actually "leading") an unlicensed
demonstration. (Germany is not yet a free-speech
country). This allegation was dropped, when it
was determined by the police that the
demonstration--of which I had not even been
part--was actually not an unlicensed one. Instead I was now charged with what I had
stated at the foregoing meeting, namely that the
gas chamber shown to tourists at Auschwitz is a
fake built after the war. This fact has now been
confirmed by the Polish authorities as true;
they admit the building was constructed in 1948.
Nonetheless I was fined first DM3,000 in
absentia, which fine was raised to DM10,000 at
the first
instance, which fine was increased to
DM30,000 on January 13, 1993 because I refused
to recant. (Why, indeed, should I? What I had
said was true, as has now been confirmed
by the French weekly news magazine
L'Express, January 26, 1995). 7. "Hitler book and the Jewish
Question" 1. What is your relationship with
the Faksimile Verlag Bremen publication,
"Adolf Hitler und die Judenfrage"? ANSWER: I am currently only under contract
with Faksimile Verlag, or its dependants, to
produce two works: (a) Nuremberg,
the Last Battle; (b) the Eichmann
Papers. The first is the translation of the
book which Focal Point are to publish in
October. The latter is a facsimile edition of
Eichmann's papers, which were handed to me in
Buenos Aires in October 1991, with a commentary
and introduction by me. Faksimile Verlag may
represent this as being the first of a series of
volumes under the rubric, Hitler and the Jewish
Question. I don't know. 8. IHR Newsletter 1. Who was the "British principal"? ANSWER: I don't know. It was not I. Like it
or not, there are sixty million other British
citizens. I am not an official of the IHR, nor
privy to their secrets. I can inquire, if you
wish. 2. Do you accept that the IHR is a
legal organisation? ANSWER: Yes. | 7.4. Churchill's War 1. Are these quotations not your
own, as reported in the press? ANSWER: They are not quotations from any of
my works, including CHURCHILL'S
WAR. Nor would I ever use such language.
Nor do I believe everything I read in the
press. 6.1. 1. You state, "No ban on entering
Germany has ever been notified to me." Are
you claiming that you have never been banned
from Germany? ANSWER: The reference is to the years up to
1991, and to an Einreiseverbot, which is
different from the Aufenthaltsverbot. There was
word-of-mouth report that a ban had been issued
against my entering Germany, i.e. the
Einreiseverbot. I was never notified of this,
however, despite entering Germany many times.
The authorities were legally unable to expel me
in the absence of an Aufenthaltsverbot. In
November 1993 I was handed this latter document
(Aufenthaltsverbot) by agents of Germany's
political police in a restaurant in Munich. I
have not visited Germany since then. As said,
not for the first time in its existence Germany
is no
longer a free-speech country. 2. If you have been banned, when was
the ban effective? ANSWER: See above for answer. 3. What meetings did you speak at? ANSWER: By this time I had established a
large circle of individual private friends and
supporters in Germany, and these private
individuals organised local audiences for me to
address. I do not propose to identify these
individuals. As said, Germany is no longer a
free-speech country and I do not want to
endanger them. 4. Who organised them? ANSWER: See above. 5. Where and how were they
publicised? ANSWER: See above. 6. Who attended them? ANSWER: See above.  8.
"The Waterstone's group has never 'refused to
sell' my book HITLER'S
WAR"
1. There are numerous reports from
1992 in which you criticise branches of
Waterstone's for withdrawing Hitler's
War from sale, and declare that you will
distribute it yourself. Are you now saying
that this has never happened? ANSWER: In November 1991 Focal Point
republished a special edition of HITLER'S WAR
(which is now sold out). Initially Waterstone's
stocked it well. Individual branches of
Waterstone's--in Norwich, Newcastle,
Nottingham,--came under physical
attack, as local Jewish groups organised
window-smashing festivities, rather like
Kristallnacht (or the Nazi Book-burning--I am
not
| sure which is the most apposite simile
here). At that time Waterstone's shops were all
part of a chain owned by Mr Tim Waterstone. He
wrote to me assuring me that his company would
never condone censorship of any sort. A few
misguided Marxist department heads within his
stores individually decided not to stock my
books. The "Waterstone's group" never refused to
sell the book however, and it has been selling
the latest book, GOEBBELS.
MASTERMIND OF THE THIRD REICH very
powerfully (it is now owned, I understand, by W
H Smith).
---- GENERAL
OBSERVATIONS You will recall that my purpose in submitting
to this Questionnaire was to enable your clients
to satisfy themselves that the Report
or Reports on me which they had written and
published and which had found its or their way
into the secret files of various foreign
governments was or were essentially not only
defamatory but untrue. I observe that your Questionnaire does not
ask questions about very many of the defamatory
statements about which I made complaint, which
fact I take as tacit acceptance by your
goodselves that no defence is contemplated on
those points. I hope that you will accept that
on those points about which you still had
questions, namely those voiced in the
Questionnaire, my answers establish that your
clients' defamatory remarks were also
untrue. May I point out that regardless of the date
on which the report or reports complained of
were first composed and published by your
clients to third parties, they were marked
Confidential and Secret, and they were withheld
from my attention as the aggrieved party until
years later; and that as recently as September 7
of last year your clients were stoutly
denying that they had maintained any such
reports (a denial which they were not
however prepared to swear in an affidavit).
It was not until December that you very properly
admitted that your clients were the originators
of the report or reports complained of, i.e. it
was only then that I knew "all the facts
relevant" to the cause of action (Limitation Act
1980 as amended by the Administration of Justice
Act 1985). I do now however have my eye firmly
on the clock. In the event that we fail rapidly
to reach agreement as contemplated in our
Without Prejudice correspondence, I shall make
timely application to a Master for permission to
commence proceedings under the Defamation Act
1952. If these proceedings are to be conducted in
the open, they will be more painful than the
settlement which I put in prospect. As you know, I am not seeking monetary
compensation from your clients, subject to our
reaching agreement on other matters, namely that
your clients agree in writing to withdraw the
report or reports complained of in their
entirety, admitting that they are defamatory and
untrue in essential parts and undertaking not to
repeat the defamatory and untrue statements
contained therein; this agreement to remain
confidential to all parties, except that I shall
have the right to disclose it to those persons
to whom the original report or reports
complained of were published or otherwise
disclosed. | I have, it is worth remarking, last year
obliged a major Sunday newspaper to pay very
substantial damages for just one of precisely
the kind of libels contained in the reports
complained of in the present correspondence
(Queen's Bench 1995 No. I-1803). On May 1 this
year furthermore I served a Writ under the Act
against The Observer for essentially the same
kind of libels (Queen's Bench 1996 No. I-604).
Only this last week I have settled out of court,
again with the payment of damages, an action
which I brought against a West End hotel
(CL.535062) which had been encouraged by people
none too distant from your clients to violate a
contract between us; I am, you will understand,
enjoined under the Consent Order from publishing
details. I am also about to issue
a Writ under the Act against two firms of
publishers and the authoress Deborah Lipstadt,
and I have issued the first warning letter to
the British distributors of the Swedish
newspaper Svenska Dagbladet preparatory to
serving a Writ for libel on them too, as well as
commencing proceedings under ch. 5 of Sweden's
Criminal Code for slander. Let us therefore proceed swiftly to the
painless settlement of my complaint against the
Board of Deputies, your clients, along the lines
that I proposed. Failing which, I shall make
application to the High Court Master on or
before September 3 for leave to commence
proceedings. Yours sincerely,  David Irving Mishcon de Reya, Solicitors
• attn.: Anthony Julius •
21 Southampton Row
London WC1B 5HS File:
Ill Wind - a ENCLOSURES. |
|
write
to David Irving